Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: October 30 To November 05, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 506 - 516]Anandraj Manikam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 506Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 507Manik Chandru Deokar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 508Matrix Publicities and Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 16(1), Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 509Bapu Bajarang Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 510Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 511Kiran P. Pawar v. Bata India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 512ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 513Abhishek Pictures v. Abhishek Agarwal Arts LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 514Amar S. Mulchandani vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 515Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Ashish Laxman Chavan 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 516Reports/JudgmentsS.304(A) IPC - Bombay High Court Quashes Death By Negligence Case Against Shopkeeper After 4-Yr-Old Victim’s Family ConsentsCase Title: Anandraj Manikam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 506The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against a shopkeeper and his employee for allegedly causing a 4-year-old’s death by negligence (304A IPC) after the child’s family consented to the quashing on humanitarian grounds.A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh granted relief to shopkeeper Anandraj Manikam on the condition he would deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Advocate’s Association of Western India Generation Next Fund. It was the prosecutions case that on 16th May 2023 when the complainant’s 4-year-old daughter visited the shop for purchasing chips, she clinged to the glass counter which collapsed and fell on her. She passed away while undergoing treatment.CrPC Doesn’t Envisage One Sided Investigation: Bombay High Court Directs Police To Consider WhatsApp Chats Submitted By AccusedCase Title: Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 507Observing that the investigating officer’s role is not just to strengthen the prosecution's case but to unearth the truth, the Bombay High Court held that the investigating agency cannot refuse to go through material submitted by the accused if it is relevant to the case.A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice MW Chandwani sitting at Nagpur judgment directed the police to consider certain printouts of WhatsApp chats submitted by the accused during its investigation in a cruelty and suicide abetment case. “No doubt, the investigating officer shall be given complete and full freedom to carry the investigation in accordance with law. The material which is sought to be produced by the accused may or may not help the investigating agency, but, it is totally unacceptable that he shall not look into the same. We do not see any provision of law which precludes the investigating officer to go through the material if he finds it relevant and germane to arrive at the truth”, the court held.State Mandating Project Affected Persons To Construct House On Alternate Land Within A Year Of Allotment "Draconian": Bombay High CourtCase Title: Manik Chandru Deokar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 508The Bombay High Court held that project affected persons are allotted alternate land on humanitarian grounds and the State cannot impose any condition on the allotment that may lead to loss of the land. The court said that such a condition would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.“The object and purpose in rehabilitating a person like the Petitioner by allotting him the alternate land in lieu of his land being acquired for a public project is purely on special and humanitarian considerations and not merely to compensate him as in a normal case of land acquisition…This would certainly not contemplate imposing of a condition which would take away the benefits of such rehabilitation, and in fact would subject such person to a coercive taking away of the alternate land allotted to him”, the court held. A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain set aside an order cancelling the allotment of alternate land to a 78-year-old project affected person on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition of constructing a house on the land within a year of the allotment.System Default Is The Standard Excuse Of Department When It Comes To Giving Refunds: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Matrix Publicities and Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 16(1), Mumbai & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 509The Bombay High Court stated that system default is the standard excuse of the department when it comes to giving refunds.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the excuse used is that the system under the control of the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore, has some issues and, therefore, amounts are not being...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: October 30 To November 05, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags